• Wednesday, January 29, 2020

India ran to uncle sam to force Pakistan to retreat!

Discussion in 'Pakistan Army' started by Myth_buster_1, Jan 11, 2020.

  1. Myth_buster_1

    Myth_buster_1 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,201
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Ratings:
    +3 / 5,781 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/orde...1999-kargil-conflict-redefined-us-india-ties/



    The Kargil war between May and July 1999, part of the broader conflict between India and Pakistan over the region of Kashmir, was a seminal turning point in American foreign policy with India
    . President Bill Clinton’s diplomatic intervention in the war, and his high-stakes summit with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, set the stage for Clinton’s visit a year later to India—the first by an American president in over 20 years—and for the warm engagement between Washington and New Delhi, which has persisted till today.

    Before the Kargil incursion, the United States was preoccupied with non-proliferation concerns in South Asia, especially after the Indian nuclear tests. Strobe Talbott’s dialogue with Jaswant Singh was an important channel of communications, but it was devoted almost entirely to curbs on nuclear weapons. The focus was on securing India’s adherence to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

    When the U.S. determined that Pakistan had deliberately violated the Line of Control near Kargil, Clinton did not hesitate to blame Pakistan for risking a broader war. For the first time, an American administration was siding publicly with India against Pakistani aggression. The Pakistani generals who had planned the Kargil incursion, led by Pervez Musharraf, had badly misread the likely American reaction.

    Sharif insisted on a summit in Washington with Clinton on July 4, 1999. Clinton was adamant that Pakistani troops had to withdraw to their old positions behind the Line of Control. If not, Washington would blame Pakistan for the war. He warned Sharif that he would also speak out about Pakistan’s coddling of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. The American intelligence community had told the president that Pakistan was flirting with nuclear war. It was perhaps the most important and intense meeting of his presidency. The normally soft negotiator who usually sought compromise was tough and firm. I had never seen him more concentrated.

    The outcome of the Kargil war altered the substance of the Talbott mission. The focus moved to conflict prevention. The Musharraf coup that ousted Sharif reinforced the new direction of the Indo-American dialogue. The stage was set for Clinton’s multi-day trip to India in early 2000 and his few hours in Islamabad. The contrast was striking.

    Clinton’s trip to India not only broke the decades-old famine of presidential travel to India; his two successors followed in his steps and visited India. The security dialogue between Washington and New Delhi has deepened and strengthened enormously. The current administration has also committed to a strong relationship with India, but is so dysfunctional that it has been largely absent from the subcontinent.

    Clinton came into office in 1993 determined to rebuild U.S. relations with India, which had been in disrepair since the mid-1960s. Like his predecessor and idol, John F. Kennedy, Clinton believed India was bound to be a major power in the future—and a democratic one as well. He was determined to visit India, but a succession of short-lived governments in New Delhi and the distraction of other events kept the trip from happening.

    The nuclear tests in May 1998, first by India and then by Pakistan, seemed to be the final blow to the president’s plans. The Kargil conflict changed the equation. The president and his team were determined to exploit the opportunity. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was equally determined to be engaging and a warm host.

    The turning point was the Kargil war 20 years ago. The trajectory of America’s engagement with India was set. Hopefully it will remain on course.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 8
  2. LoveyouUighursbrothers

    LoveyouUighursbrothers BANNED

    Messages:
    1,221
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2019
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,094 / -5
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    America is so scary.
     
  3. Chhatrapati

    Chhatrapati SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,654
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 6,163 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Mauritius
    :D Throughout the Kargil Fiasco Indian PM was in India.
    What about Pak PM Nawaz Sharif?

    @Myth_buster_1 Making feel good 'fake' titles will not change the facts.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  4. FOOLS_NIGHTMARE

    FOOLS_NIGHTMARE SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,081
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2018
    Ratings:
    +14 / 2,010 / -2
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I am a firm believer that the Kargil fiasco cost us an unbelievable diplomatic price. Before this conflict Pakistan had an MORAL upper hand on the Kashmir issue . India took the advantage of being an aggrieved nation whos sovereignty had been violated by the so called Pakistani aggression.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2020
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  5. Raj-Hindustani

    Raj-Hindustani FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    113
    Joined:
    May 4, 2019
    Ratings:
    +0 / 44 / -4
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Nawaz Sharif??

    I didn't know he was the India's PM during the Kargil WAR (time).
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Pakistan Space Agency

    Pakistan Space Agency BANNED

    Messages:
    1,588
    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2019
    Ratings:
    +1 / 1,905 / -14
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    So basically the article says, because of the traitor General Pervez Musharraf's Kargil misadventure, US decided to abandon 40-year-old relationship with Pakistan and hug India which it had ignored for 40-years for Pakistan.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  7. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    6,551
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Ratings:
    +72 / 12,746 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Exactly, people should stop glorifying Kargil blunder. Nothing good came of it and it failed not because of the civilian leadership but because of the Musharraf, his comrades, and their poor planning.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  8. Taimur Khurram

    Taimur Khurram ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,433
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +9 / 8,664 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Several peaks in the region were gained which still remain under Pakistani control. Point 5353 is the most notable one.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  9. Sher Shah Awan

    Sher Shah Awan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    6,729
    Joined:
    May 8, 2013
    Ratings:
    +25 / 11,487 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    And Pakistan got scared and ran back to hide when Uncle Sam swished it's magic wand. If those responsible for 1971 were properly punished, Kargil fiasco, nor many others, would not have happened.

    If only we as a nation stopped glorifying defeat and failed leaders, and instead concentrate on learning lessons, we might be able to achieve something. Till then, we can continue to live in Lala land while all around us the world ridicules us, and takes advantage of our plight.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  10. Jungibaaz

    Jungibaaz PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Messages:
    6,551
    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Ratings:
    +72 / 12,746 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Not worth even a fraction of the cost. Those peaks could well have been captured after Siachen as was proposed at the time but rejected, or later after 1999 had the planning been done properly. Instead we squandered a major weakness of Indian defence, which is the fact that they left these very important positions vacant, in a better scenario this might have been employed to our benefit in a conflict and not squandered. And we did end up losing almost all captured peaks. These few remaining are meaningless and aren’t worthy of mention when the cost to Pakistan is factored.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  11. OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ

    OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    652
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 636 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Clinton's both Mr. And Mrs. were never pro Pakistan... previously Republican leaders used to be on Pakistan's side and that to because Pakistan was firmly on anti Soviet camp. India had been playing both sides until that point and U.S. had no interest in propping up an India that might easily drift firmly in Soviet orbit. U.S. had tried even previous to cajole India but Soviets did a better job. After the demise of Soviet union U.S. didn't need Pakistan but it did need India as a regional counter to an ascending China....
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. Myth_buster_1

    Myth_buster_1 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,201
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Ratings:
    +3 / 5,781 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    It was because of your daddy Clinton who forced Pakistan to retreat.
    Clinton was adamant that Pakistani troops had to withdraw to their old positions behind the Line of Control. If not, Washington would blame Pakistan for the war.
     
  13. Chhatrapati

    Chhatrapati SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    7,654
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 6,163 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Mauritius
    He was Daddy, but not ours, Daddy Clinton forced isolated and humiliated Child Pakistan. At the time Pakistanis were the favorite of the west and India was the bad guy who sided with Russians, tested nukes without the approval of the west, you saved us from that position by attacking us without any reason. Pakistan was the middle man who endorsed US China relation and them entering WTO. From there what a fall it was:disagree:.

    The Kargil drama alone cost a great deal of international repercussions on Pakistan. India played it's narrative very well showing Pakistan as aggressor.

    Clinton saved your a$$ from further humiliation and gave you an unfavorable exit and he also realized Pakistan is unstable and unreliable as an ally, that's how US started getting close to India to balance out relation with Pakistan.
     
  14. Taimur Khurram

    Taimur Khurram ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    8,433
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +9 / 8,664 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    They're literally some of the tallest in the region.
     
  15. BringHarmony

    BringHarmony BANNED

    Messages:
    1,048
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Ratings:
    +1 / 595 / -10
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    It just shows how successful India diplomacy is against Pakistan.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1